read_object

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that content is cached and includes properties, methods, examples, and source links, but it omits permissions, rate limits, failure behavior, and an explicit read-only/no-side-effects statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the usage context immediately after. Every phrase adds information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a one-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter examples, though sibling routing and behavioral caveats such as permissions remain thin.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%: the sole required parameter object_name has no schema description. The description partially compensates by saying 'one object' and giving example object names, but it does not specify naming format, case sensitivity, or valid value constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: reading cached object documentation, including properties, methods, examples, and source links for one object. It distinguishes object docs from sibling read_service/read_event/read_type tools implicitly via 'object' and the context line, but does not explicitly contrast them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear usage context: use for object method questions involving Entity, Player, Leaderboard, Team, Knockback, and other objects. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives for services, events, or types, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.